Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-19APPROVED 1-7-86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schmacher, Livengood (left at p.m.), Ers ine (left at 9:30 p.m.), Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS NONE C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 THORUGH C-16 WERE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: C-31 C-5, C-8, C-1, C-15, C-2, C-4, C-7, C-6, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-16. C-1 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 - SIGN CODE Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Staff recommended that the Planning Commission schedule a workshop on the sign code for all interested parties on a Tuesday evening not scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Spence Sheldon of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce stated he would like to be involved in the special meeting regarding input for the sign code. He stated that he concurred with staff recommendations. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Glen Godfrey of staff recommended to continue this item to January 7, 1986 with a special meeting on December 10, 1985 to get comments from the commission. The Commission discussed comments by each Commissioner and welcomed any interested parties to the study session scheduled for December 10, 1985 for imput. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE THIS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 - SIGN CODE TO JANUARY 7, 1985 AND SCHEDULE A STUDY SESSION FOR DECEMBER 10, 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-9 Applicant: Design 2 Signmakers On November 5, 1985, the Planning Commission voted to continue Special Sign Permit No. 85-9. Staff was instructed to meet with the applicant and work on the sign proposal. Staff met with the applicant on November 15, 1985, and the results of the meeting are discussed in Section 9.0 of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Campbell, owner and applicant for Campbell Nissan, stated he concurred with staff recommendations and asked the Planning Commission for approval of the sign change. Chairman Livengood stated that he took a survey and counted 14 signs on the property asking the applicant when the new signs go up will those 14 signs be taken down. John Campbell stated yes. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood stated he would support this if the other 14 signs came down adding that this would clear up the site. Commissioner Porter stated he was not in favor of another free-standing structure adding he would be in favor of a monument sign saying Campbell as long as it goes on the building in some way. Commissioner Rowe stated he agreed with Commissioner Porter. He asked how staff could guarantee the removal of the 14 signs. Florence Webb of staff said it was a condition of approval. Commissioner Winchell said she would allow one sign at 20 feet in height. John Campbell stated that this was the height of the light standard and it would be cluttered because the lights would be the same height as the sign adding the sign would not be visible. P.C. November 19, 1985 -2- (3885d) Commissioner Rowe stated he did not want any more clutter on Beach Blvd. and could not see why the Campbell sign was needed. John Campbell stated that the need for the sign is because Nissan is a franchise and Campbell is the identification name. Nissan will not accept another name on their ground sign. Chairman Livengood stated that that tie would support the 25 foot sign, but the other Commissioners agreed on a 20 foot sign which is staff's alternative recommendation. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-9 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed combination of signs would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed combination of signs would not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed combination of signs will be in keeping with the character of the commercial area. 4. The proposed combination of signs will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A revised site plan and elevation.. shall be submitted indicating the size and location of signs as required by the Planning Commission. The plans are to be subject to review and approved by the Director of Development Services. 2. The used car sign shall be a monument sign, 58 sq.ft. The freestanding Nissan Sign shall be 20 ft in height and 92 sq.ft. in area. The dealer's name identification has the option of a 36 sq. ft. monument sign or a wall sign pursuant to code.' A sign indicating entrance into the service area shall be 3 ft. in height and 3 sq. ft. of area. 3. The proposed combination of signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services. 4. All illegal banners and flags shall be removed. 5. The existing roof sign shall be removed. P.C. November 19, 1985 -3- (3885d) 6. Additional landscaping shall be provided along Beach Boulevard for the used car lot. 7. All non -.conforming and illegal signs on the site shall be removed C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30' Applicant: Arco Petroleum Products At the November 5, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, the request for extension of time was continued to be heard as a public hearing item. Staff contacted representatives of the applicant and they have indicated that Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14, a request to construct a new convenience market with_ gasoline sales, will be withdrawn and Conditional Use Permit No., 84" 30, a convenience market conversion, will be implemented. During -the -public --hearing for the zone change to C4-SS, the concerns of the adjacent property owner addressed the proposed new construction (tonditio'nal Use Permit No. 85-14) and were not raised during the public hearings for Conditional Use Permit No.''84-30, conversion of the e'xisti'ng facility. The 'zone change*to C4-,SS,:effective November 21, 1985, is no longer required to convert the existing service station to a convenience market combined with gasoline sales. During the past year, the City Council and Planning Commission have expressed concern with the decline of service stations and conversions to self-service and/or convenience markets. Staff has been directed to evaluate convenience markets in relationship to commercial development standards, i.e. setbacks, parking, sight angle visibility., The proposed conversion to convenience market with gasoline sales, will.be incompatible-with,this new direction. Glen Godfrey stated that the applicant's Attorney requested that this item-be-con,t,inued to. ,the. next ,regular meeting ,of December 3, 1985. ; THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY,r,ERSKINE..AND -,SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR. TO ,CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 TO THE DECEMBER 3, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEET ING,BY_THE.FO-LLOWING,VOTE: AYES:, Rowe,; .Winchell.,, Schumacher, Li,vengood,, Erskine,, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None _ ABSENT: None-. _ ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P.C. November 19,'1985 - 4 ... `(3885d) 1 C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of November 5, 1985, in order to receive clarification regarding the way site coverage is calculated and how balconies are considered. Balconies are included as part of the site coverage figure. Any building feature that extends more than thirty inches from the building surface is included as site coverage. The reason that Code Amendment No. 85-17 states that both balconies and decks can be used for the additional open space that is required in exchange for additional site coverage is to allow design flexibility; in that, the balconies themselves will count towards site coverage, it is likely that decks will be used more often to satisfy the open space requirement. To restrict the additional open space to just decks, though, would mean that any square footage that may be included in balconies would not be able to be counted towards open space requirements. This provision would be unnecessarily restrictive. Due to the more restrictive definition of site coverage incorporated in the Oldtown/Townlot code amendment (Ordinance 2780), it would be appropriate to allow an additional 5 percent site coverage, for a maximum of 55 percent for 2 story dwellings. The additional site coverage over 50 percent would have to be offset by providing an equal amount of additional open space in the form of balconies or decks. A deed restriction would be required to guarantee that the structure would remain a maximum of two stories. The intent of the code amendment is to permit some additional ground floor square footage for developers who do not choose to build a three story structure. This change will provide some incentive for the construction of two story structures in the Oldtown and Townlot areas. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commissioner requested that any reference to requiring a deed restriction deleted from the ordinance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission requested that this item be continued in order to allow the ordinance to be clarified; in that, it limits the additional site coverage over 50% to dwelling units with a maximum of 2-stories. P.C. November 19, 1985 -5- (3885d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 TO THE DECEMBER 3, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach At the November 5, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-21 and requested a copy of the Vesting Tentative Map Model Ordinance as prepared by Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. and a legislative draft of the City's proposed Ordinance. A procedure for filing and processing of vesting tentative maps has been established under Article 935.5. It describes authority granted by the California Subdivision Map Act, filing procedures, department review, information required on the map, rights conferred by a vesting tentative map, and consistency with zoning and general plan. Vesting tentative maps are the wave of the future. They represent a development agreement between the developer/subdivider and the City which assures the developer a vested right to proceed with development in compliance with the vesting tentative map. The applicability of vesting tentative maps may be extended to non-residential developments as early as January 1, 1988 (Assembly Bill 2143 recently passed by the Legislature). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-66 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued prior to any action on Code Amendment No. 85-21, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration NO. 85-66. Florence Webb of staff stated that continuance to December 3, 1985 was being recommended because there is no ordinance available yet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. P.C. November 19, 1985 -6- (3885d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY•MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND•BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE CODE -AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 TO DECEMBER 3, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: AYES: Rowe;, .Wirzche,ll, . Schumacher;• Livengood� Erskine, -Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO._85-19-APPEAL Applicant: Tait & Associates The applicant is. appealing two conditions of approval imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on a request to demolish and rebuild a service station w.ith three service bays. The Board of Zoning Adjustments required (1) closure of the southernmost driveway on Magnolia and additionallandscapinginstalled and (2) creation of two reciprocal _driveways, -north and east-, with the adjoining shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 85-21 was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on October 23.,,-1985. No additional review or action is required. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mr. Ludwig Sme,ets, representing Tait & Associates, reviewed his request with,the Planning Commission'.and stated that the applicant was dropping the -appeal -,of condition 5a regarding the requirement for five foot wide planters at the Northwest corner of the site and along both sides -of the -four spaces fronting -Adams Avenue. There being no further testimony; the public -hearing -was closed. The Commission.xeviewed the request and supported the Board of Zoning Adjustments•approval.based on:findings and conditions originally imposed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-19 WITH CONDITIONS IMPOSED -AND DENY THE APPLICANTS APPEAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell,,Schumacher, Porter,•Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P.C. November 19, 1985 -7- (3885d) C-7 .APPEAL OF'BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL'OF COASTAL DEVELOPMBNT..PERMI.T NO. 85-28 Applicant: Ron Montgomery Coastal.Development-Permit,No.:85-28,is.a request.to allow a 2408 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence. Because the proposed project is creating a third floor, a coastal development permit is required (989.5.3.b3) On October 16, 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Coastal Development Permit No. 85-28 and Use Permit No. 85-65, a request to construct 3,000 sq. ft. of building area to an existing single-family residence with non -conforming -setback for -front entry garage (20 feet in lieu of 221). Subsequently, the applicant appealed the denial and revised the site -plan by reducing the addition from 3,000 to 2,408,and adjusting the addition setback so as to comply with the,code thereby eliminating the need for a use permit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The subject property is in the Coastal Zone and subject to the provisions of Article 989.5, Coastal Development Permit. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for a third floor addition to a development abutting the harbor,'a coastal development permit must first be approved.=In-approving Coastal Development Permit No. 85-65, the Planning Commission must find that the project is in conformance with the Certified'Local Coastal Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mike Thomas, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the proposal. William T. Dalessi, neighbor,,spoke in opposition to the proposal. Rick Macklin, neighbor and newest member -of Skarkbay Homeowners Association spoke,in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Fraide, project archetect, stated that there are already homes with three stories in the neighborhood and added that he felt there was no legal cause to deny'a third story to this resident. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Florenece Webb of staff also read into the minutes names of correspondence in opposition to the Coastal Development. These names have been placed into the file. 1 P.C. November 19, 1985 -8- (3885d) Commissioner Rowe stated that he was opposed to this request and staffs recommendation. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff if a coastal development permit can be denied if it is in conformance with the coastal plan. Florence Webb of staff said yes, but the Commission must have findings for denial. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-28 WITH FINDINGS IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The revised single-family residence addition does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. The residence is within an existing subdivision of single-family residence. 2. The three-story residence is inconsistent with other developments in the area. The majority of existing residences are two stories and the addition of a three story dwelling will change the character of the neighborhood. 3. The elimination of view opportunities for existing residences is not consistent with coastal element requirements. 4. The purpose of low density residential is to establish land use that provides the greatest degree of light, air ventilation and open space on each lot and this proposal will preclude that. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-57/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-8 Applicant: Church of Religious Science In February 1983 the Planning Commission approved the establishment of a church facility within Seacliff Shopping Center (Conditional Use Permit No. 83-2). The church facility, including a book store, is approximately 7,660 square feet with a congregation of approximately 3,000 people. The church is primarily utilized on Sundays with three morning services. These services are held at approximately 8:00, 9:45, and 11:30 A.M. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act the subject request is categorically exempt. P.C. November 19, 1985 -9- (3885d) The applicant presented a letter requesting extended time of the application. Florence Webb of staff stated she will concur with the applicants request for extension to review the proposal for some possibility of compromise. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Warren Lorti stated he requested continuance due to the fact that the staff report did not come to him in time to review the alternatives. He asked for an extension of time to get with staff and explore the alternatives. , Chairman Livengood asked if continuance to December 17, 1985 would be enough time. Warren Lorti said yes. Commissioner Schumacher requested that staff state what the parking ration presently is in the center in the next staff report so the Commission is aware of what they are working with. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Staff made the Commission aware of a letter from the property owner in support of the expansion of this facility, adding there was a letter from other proprietors supporting the proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-57/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-85 TO THE DECEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-59 Applicant: Lillian.Wellman , Conditional Use Permit,No. 85-59 is a request to expand an existing day care home from six to twelve children in a single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. P.C. November,19, 1985 -10- (3885d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mrs. Wellman, applicant, informed the Commission she has had the day-care for 6 years, adding that the infant children are getting older and going to school. The parents of these children are having more children. Commissioner Porter asked Mrs. Wellman if she was able to take care of the insurance. Mrs. Wellman stated yes. Commissioner Rowe asked the applicant since she was increasing the number of children will there be more children playing outside. Mr. Wellman responded that her children were small and she did not allow them outside. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-59 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed day care facility will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The access to the day care facility will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed day care facility is compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood and is reflected by a petition submitted by the applicant indicating neighbors signatures in favor of expansion of the day-care home. 4. The proposed day care facility is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. P.C. November 19, 1985 -11- (3885d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated October 17, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the Orange County license which permits care of six to twelve children. 3. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Monday through Friday. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon receipt of several complaints from surrounding residents; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-50 Applicant: Dick Thorpe Conditional Use Permit No. 85-50 is a request to establish retail sales of automobile accessories in a vacant building having 3,249 square feet of floor area. The building (formerly Yang's Drug Store) is immediately adjacent to the applicant's other business, Pristine Porsche. Although the site plan submitted indicates "installation" as a use within the building, the applicant has indicated that the use of the building will be limited to retail sales. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt Section 15301, Class 1. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dick Thorpe, applicant, spoke in support of the project. Jim Briggs, owner of the property, spoke in support of the stating Mr. Thorpe has been a very successful businessman. He said that his Mr. Thorpe's added business would improve the property value. Susan Lucci, neighboring business owner, felt that Mr. Thorpe has been "hasseled" by the city and spoke in support of the proposal promoting Mr. Thorpes business abilities. Tom Vantile, spoke in support of the proposal. Jerry Williams, owner of the business next door, spoke in support of Mr. Thorpe's business and proposed project. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter commented that these plans were submitted over two months ago questioning staff why it took two months to come to the Planning Commission. Florence Webb of staff explained that when the application was submitted it was incomplete and the use proposed was not in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan. P.C. November 19, 1985 -12- (3885d) 1 The Commission asked staff to clarify the reason for -the conditional use permit,application: Florence Webb of staff stated that another drug store can,;go J nto this,building.without new entitlement. The applicant.must•;have; the, same-.use.,without change, Auto,accessory sales is not the same as a drug store. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she supported this project because she did not want to see -;these buildings empty when the City could be receiving revenue, and,as•long as the applicant is aware that he has to move when redevelopment begins. Commissioner Rowe -commented that he concurred with Commissioner Schumacher. Commissioner Schumacher said she did not find this proposal to be detrimental to the area-.__ She_asked if this project is approved, what type of'"conditions of approval could be imposed. Glen Godfrey,of staff,,said,that if the direction of•the Planning Commission,is for_,,approval the,staff could come back -with findings and conditions of approval by the: -next -meeting, •• � ;'' . A MOTION ,WAS• ;MADE BY' :PORTER - AND,-.SECOND?BY `MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE,,PERMIT NO.,.•85-50 TO THE',DECEMBER 31' 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rower. ,Winch,ell,_ =Schumacher.-: Porter f -Mir jahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine _. ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 3 C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85=84- Applicant: Chevron USA = _-- The :Plannin-g Commission .approved Conditional-• Use �Permit� No. 85=30 on September-, ,,, 1.985,>•tep, Derma t :tbe- cons-tructi-6n of � a 'conveni`ence" market in con Junction.,.wi;t,b, the,, sale of, gasoline.! . (A tondition was ' placed on the pro3ect'that no alcohol..sales,be-•permi•tted:-). - As-par,t.of the plan check --process, it was•,determined that the site was part of. th,e,-FP2._.flood�zone_which::would'require•that the,'tructure either"be;constructed,,9r,floodproofed:.up-,to-�an,elevation'of- thirteen feet above` sea ,1eve1 .. �,The_,grading:,plan:=of the= site indicates the grade at 8.5--, above_)sea level :: aThe_applicant- is- requesting an exception,_to_.these '-,_quir,ements.-far",floodproofing purstTant to the specific 'variance procedue;s,et forthAn Article ,9695 for`'the floodplain district. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project -is_ -covered ,by: Negative -Declaration --No. 85-35, approved by the `Phanning-,Commission•, on September -4,-',1985 in conjunction with! the approved.,zone-change •and• conditional' use permit. P.C. November_ 19.,-, 1985 -13- - - -= (3885d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mark Murphy, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. Commissioner Porter stated that he was not opposed to the conditional exception but he was not happy with the brown sheet metal building, commenting that half of the structure should be slumpstone. He felt that more attention should be paid to the structure in order to upgrade the main appearance of the building. Leo Kiso, archetect, stated that these buildings are very expensive and it would destroy the project if we have to go along with the Commissions request. Commissioner Porter stated that in regard to the flood requirement that can be imposed would supplement the extra cost of additional material to the sheet metal building. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85- WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that there is a showing of good and sufficient cause due to the size, life, occupancy and value of the building in relation to the cost involved in floodproofing the structure. 2. Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant due to the additional cost involved in meeting the floodproofing requirements of Section 969.6.19(c)(3) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, and will not create a nuisance, cause fraud or victimize the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. P.C. November 19, 1985 -14- (3885d) CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Revised plans and elevations shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Development Services to depict building and roof support structures treated with some additional archetectural treatment (slump stone or brick) to create a more pleasing archetectural appearance and design. C-12 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-10 Applicant: Chevron USA Special Sign Permit No. 85-10 is a request to permit two 1.9' x 9' (15.75 square feet) "CHEVRON" signs on two sides of a canopy. A special sign permit is required for the proposed canopy signs because they are considered roof signs which are prohibited per Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mark Murphy, representing Chevron, spoke in support of the project. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter commented that the signing was very attractive adding that he appreciated the use of channel letters and the particular design is very consistent with the new installations. Commissioner Winchell said she would like to add that no wall signs allowed if there is a canopy sign. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-10 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS 1. The proposed canopy signs would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed canopy signs would not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. P.C. November 19, 1985 -15- (3885d) 3. The proposed canopy signs will be in keeping with the character, of the shopping center and neighborhood. 4. The proposed canopy signs will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A site plan and elevation shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services which will indicate the exact dimensions for the proposed canopy signs, spandrel signs and only Food Mart on the cashier's booth. 2. The proposed canopy signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services. 3. No building business identification wall signs shall be allowed. C-13 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-11 Applicant: Huntington Beach'Sign'Co. Special Sign Permit No.-85-11 is a'request to permit a 20 foot high, 168 square foot multi -tenant freestanding sign -within 200 feet of two approved monument signs. The Newland Center is governed by Planned Sign Program No. 81-1. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Wayne Lamb, representing Huntington Beach Sign Co., spoke in support of his proposal. Shari Bower, representing tenants of Newland Center, expressed the need for a tenant sign with support from management. Commissioner Schumacher commented that there were 28 tenants asking for representation, she asked Ms. Bower if she was going to put 14 names on one side and 14 on -the other. Shari Bower replied yes, adding that they will be rotated. Jack Britton, spoke in support of the project. June Lloyd spoke in support of the project. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter stated that with the sign situation regarding Burger King and Spires he could not support the special sign permit request. P.C. November 19, 1985 -16- (3885d) Commissioner Schumacher stated since they were using an existing sign she did rot have a problem with it. Commissioner Winchell stated she thought it was a very nice looking sign adding she would support the request because this center is unique because the buildings are set so far back. Commissioner Mirjahangir commented that since the applicant is replacing the sign with something the same size he would support the request. The Commission also discussed the difficultly of recognizing so many tenant names when traveling at a high speed. Commissioner Schumacher brought to the Commissions attention the fact that the sign was located adjacent to a signal light. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-11 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed freestanding sign shall replace the existing freestanding identification sign. 2. The proposed sign would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 3. The proposed sign would not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed sign will be in keeping with the character of the shopping center and neighborhood. 5. The proposed sign will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A site plan and elevation shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services which will indicate the recommended freestanding sign and exact locations. 2. The proposed freestanding sign shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services. 3. All illegal banners and flags shall be removed. P.C. November 19, 1985 -17- (3885d) 4. The proposed sign of 168 sq. ft. is replacing an existing sign of 200 sq. ft. C-14 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-12 Applicant: Nu Art Signmakers Special Sign Permit No. 85-12 is a request to permit a 60 square foot, 4 foot high externally illuminated monument sign in a M1-A, Restricted Manufacturing District. The proposed sign will be the only ground sign located on the property. An existing freestanding sign will be removed if the subject monument sign is approved. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joseph Arkeder, representing Public Storage, spoke in support of the project. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-12 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed recommended 60 square foot monument sign would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed recommended 60 square foot monument sign would not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed recommended 60 square foot monument sign will be in keeping with the character of the development and neighborhood. 4. The proposed recommended 60 square foot monument sign will not obstruct the vision of vehicular 'or pedestrian traffic. 5. A center of this size is allowed by code a 60 sq. ft. sign, however, because there is only one tenant, it does meet the definition of center (three or more tenants). Therefore, a 60 sq. ft. sign on a development of this size will not have a negative impact upon the area. P.C. November 19, 1985 -18- (3885d) 6. The existing freestanding sign shall be removed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A site plan and elevation shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for a 60 square foot monument sign. 2. The proposed 60 square foot monument sign shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services. 3. All illegal banners and flags shall be removed. 4. The existing freestanding ground sign shall be removed concurrently with the installation of the monument sign. C-15 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2.1)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 addresses one private request (Area 2.1) and eleven City -initiated amendments intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning and developed densities. EIR 85-3 addresses only Area 2.1 and the City -initiated amendments are treated as Administrative Items. Since staff is still preparing and has not yet advertised the eleven zone changes for the Administrative Items, this public hearing is intended to address only Area 2.1 and Zone Change No. 85-15. Further, the 45-day public review period for EIR 85-2 will not expire until December 2, 1985 so the Planning Commission cannot take action on any portion of the amendment until December 3, 1985. The November 19, 1985 public hearing is intended only for the Planning Commission to review and receive comments on Area 2.1 so that they will be prepared to make a decision on it on December 3, 1985. Staff will also have the additional.concurrent zone changes prepared and advertised for action on December 3, 1985. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dean Albright of the Huntington Beach Environmental Board spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. Mary Rena commented that she has lived in the area for 25 years and spoke in opposition of the proposed amendment and zone change. Allen Degenhardt, applicant proposing senior citizen project, spoke in support of the proposed amendment and zone change and his proposal for an affordable housing project for senior citizens. Suellen Crossno spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. P.C. November 19, 1985 -19- (3885d) Richard Short, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher asked why the General Plan Amendment was so project specific Hal Simmons of staff responded that the SR zoning code requires the submittal of a conceptual development plan at the time of filing a zone change. Commissioner Erskine suggested that the applicant work closer with the neighborhood. Commissioner Winchell commented that the neighborhood needs to realize that the General Plan Amendment is general and specific development problems will be addressed late. Chairman Livengood suggested a comparison be done with existing R5 zoning in terms of heights, setbacks etc. Commissioner Erskine agreed with Chairman Livengood recommending continuance. The Commission asked about the EIR. Commissioner Winchell stated that the EIR should adress soils conditions. Hal Simmons of staff stated that staff was still receiving comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERKSINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2.1)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 TO THE DECEMBER 3, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-16 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-63 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to increase the required parking for senior residential projects developed pursuant to the -SR suffix. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. P.C. November 19, 1985 -20- (3885d) A MOTION WAS M79,DF BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-63 AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 Parking and Landscaping Comparison DISCUSSED D-2 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Ordinance DISCUSSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: F. PENDING ITEMS: NONE G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The Commission requested staff to look into the idea of modifying the code to allow only two stories in R1 zone. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: The Commissioner discussed and reviewed items handed out by the staff on Ground Signs for Loehmann's Five Points Plaza, Entertainment Permit for Old World German Restaurant. The Commission reviewed a proposal submitted by Dave Oddo to establish two single family lots on the property at 902 Main Street as an alternative to a proposal that was denied by the Planning Commission on November 5, 1985. The Commission's concensus was that they could not support the Oddo proposal. I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. to the next regular meeting of December 3, 1985. !;J mes W. Palin, Secretary Tom Li ,n ood, Chairman lcp P.C. November 19, 1985 -21- (3885d)